Blogs

In a very revealing commentary published at jurist.org last month, long-time assisted suicide advocate Kathryn Tucker admits that the so-called “safeguards” included in physician-assisted suicide proposals aren’t really safeguards at all. In fact, she calls them “burdens,” “restrictions,” and “barriers.” She thinks it’s unfortunate that these restrictions are included in the laws of Oregon and Vermont, and laments the fact that the recently-passed District of Columbia Act includes them as well.

Tucker says the safeguards “impose heavy governmental intrusion into the practice of medicine.” She points to Montana as the solution – there, the state’s high court allows doctor-assisted suicide without any safeguards at all; it’s all subject to a doctor’s judgment about the “best standard of care.”

Well, you have to give her points for honesty. It’s refreshing at least. For years now the proponents of these suicide bills have been selling them to state lawmakers with their promise of “strict safeguards” to ensure there is no abuse or coercion in the way the laws are carried out. In contrast, those of us who have opposed physician-assisted suicide have consistently argued that the so-called “safeguards” in these bills are a con — as Wesley Smith has cleverly noted, they are the “honey to help make the hemlock go down.”

New York State lawmakers should not be fooled. No strict “guidelines” or “safeguards” can prevent the financial pressures, mistaken diagnoses, subtle coercion and other dangers that will inevitably accompany a policy of legalized death-making.

On Monday, May 23, the members of the Assembly Health Committee voted to release a dangerous physician-assisted suicide bill, A.10059/S.7579. Many opponents of assisted suicide were deeply disappointed, even discouraged. And rightly so – it was a step in the wrong direction for our state.

But do not lose heart! There were actually some very encouraging signs in this vote. First and foremost, the bill got through the committee by only the narrowest of margins; just one more vote would have kept the bill in committee. That does not happen often in a committee that is purposefully stacked with anti-life votes.

Second, six Democratic members of the Assembly (yes, six!), five of whom are self-described “pro-choice” members, voted against the bill. Their votes demonstrate to their Democratic colleagues that this issue is not a liberal litmus test – one can be a self-described “progressive” and be deeply concerned about the vulnerable populations who will be harmed by this legislation. More than a few committee members – of both political parties — spoke of the unacceptable risks to the elderly, the isolated and people with disabilities that would come from legalizing assisted suicide.

Finally, the bill did not move to the Assembly floor for a vote; it was simply sent to another committee, the Assembly Codes Committee, and no votes have been scheduled there. Nor are any votes scheduled in any Senate committees. The 2016 State Legislative Session is scheduled to conclude on June 16, and we are hopeful that this legislation will perish at that time, at least until next year, when we anticipate the battle will be rejoined.

Please continue to pray for a Culture of Life, and continue to educate others — including your own elected officials — about the risks of legalizing physician-assisted suicide. Excellent resources can be found here and here.

The state of Oregon is out with its most recent statistical report about how the assisted suicide law is working. The data (and it can’t be considered complete data because assisted suicide deaths are not reported as such under the law) is most revealing…and frightening. First off, there has been a marked spike in the reported number of patients requesting assisted suicide. From the time the law was enacted through 2013, the number of lethal prescriptions written increased about 12% each year. But in 2014 and 2015, the number of prescriptions written jumped by more than 24%. That is likely the result of branding and marketing by the suicide advocates, who used the face of Brittany Maynard to promote their cause.

But contrary to that campaign, the Oregon data reveals that the typical assisted suicide patient is elderly, alone, dependent on others, and dependent on government health insurance. The top three reasons for requesting lethal drugs under the law are not reasons of physical pain or suffering; they are 1) decreasing ability to participate in enjoyable activities; 2) loss of autonomy; and loss of dignity.

My colleague Ed Mechmann in the Archdiocese of New York does a great job of breaking down the numbers — and the dangers — in his column here.

The definition of “mercy” and the mission of Calvary Hospital in the Bronx were the inspiration for my Christmas column this year. I realize it is a bit tardy for the Christmas Season, but I believe the column is worthwhile reading for anytime during this Jubilee Year of Mercy. Take a look here, as published in The Tablet, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.

On Sunday I happened to catch CBS’ “60 Minutes” new episode about the death penalty. It highlighted the case of an Arizona prisoner who was sentenced to die by lethal injection. The state had tried a new combination of drugs for this execution, and instead of death within a few minutes, as expected, it took two hours and 15 injections of drugs to kill the man, who lay gasping and gulping on the gurney. According to the correspondent on 60 Minutes, things went “horribly awry.”

The episode focused on the increasing difficulty states are having in finding execution drugs. Apparently many drug companies have banned the use of their drugs for capital punishment, leaving states to try new drugs, or cocktails of drugs, that will work, and will work in a way that is not considered barbaric or “cruel and unusual.”

So here’s my question: Since it doesn’t appear that states are having any trouble finding the lethal drugs to use in assisted suicides, why can’t they just use those for executions? Assisted suicide advocates repeatedly remind us that when terminally ill patients self-administer their pills, they simply close their eyes and die a “peaceful” and “humane” death. Now that five states have legalized the practice, with California being the latest and the largest — and even more states considering legalization — the drugs can’t be that hard to come by, can they?

Additional questions:

Could it be that the lethal drugs used in assisted suicides don’t always lead to “peaceful” deaths? I mean, how would we know, really?

Do you think that pharmaceutical companies will ever ban the use of their drugs for assisted suicides the way they’ve banned them for executions? Ha! That would be political correctness gone horribly awry!

Note: This blog post is purposefully facetious and intended to make a point: Human life is sacred. It is always sacred, no matter whether the life is a convicted killer sitting on death row or a terminally ill cancer patient in his own bedroom. States should not be in the business of killing them or assisting in their deaths in any way.

By now you have probably seen, or at least heard about, the videotapes on which Planned Parenthood officials speak bluntly about trafficking in the organs and tissues of aborted babies. Here’s my take, as published in The Tablet, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.

Legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide has been introduced in New York State, and organizations like Final Exit Network are all in. They say that absolutely no abuses have taken place in states where doctor-assisted suicide is legal.

How could they possibly know that? Under the law, doctors who “aid-in-dying” are required to state untruthfully on the death certificate that their patient’s cause of death was their underlying illness, and not the lethal dose of drugs they prescribed that killed them. There is absolutely no way to track abuses. This same provision is in the New York Senate proposal, by the way. More

Oregon was the first state in the nation to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. Proponents of the law, which was established by a ballot measure in 1994, convinced a majority of voters that the law had certain “restrictions” and “safeguards,” including that doses of lethal drugs would be strictly limited to patients diagnosed with a terminal illness who were expected to die within 6 months.

Well here we are, more than 20 years later, and Oregon proponents are now pushing for changes to the law. They have introduced a bill, HB 3337, which expands the pool of eligible patients to those expected to die within 12 months.

I recall clearly the words of Jack “Dr. Death” Kevorkian, who admitted to assisting in the suicides of more than 130 people: “What difference does it make if someone is ‘terminal’? We are all terminal.”

And so we see the true aim of the proponents of euthanasia: death on demand. If assisted suicide continues to be permitted as a “personal choice,” and the movement framed as a “civil rights” battle, it will be impossible to limit it to certain populations or specific circumstances. It will be a right for the terminal and the non-terminal, for the competent and the incompetent, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, those who freely choose it and those who are pressured to accept it. And that puts all of us at risk.

The Vatican has designated February 8 as a first-ever “International Day of Prayer and Reflection Against Human Trafficking.” Trafficking is a world-wide problem as well as a close-to-home crime. And each of us can do something to help stop the scourge, as I note in my recent column in the North Country Catholic here. Please take some time to pray for those who are victimized.

The issue of doctor-assisted suicide is back in the news, thanks to the headline-grabbing case of a 29-year-old terminally ill woman named Brittany Maynard. She has moved to Oregon to take advantage of that state’s assisted suicide law. Here’s my take, as published in the North Country Catholic.